Trump's military parade will produce a staggering amount of planet-heating pollution
Donald Trump's military parade this weekend will bring thousands of troops out to march, while dozens of tanks and armored personnel carriers roll down the streets and fighter jets hum overhead.
The event has prompted concern about rising autocracy in the US. It will also produce more than 2m kilograms of planet-heating pollution – equivalent to the amount created by producing of 67m plastic bags or by the energy used to power about 300 homes in one year, according to a review by the progressive thinktank Institute for Policy Studies and the Guardian.
The military parade is meant to celebrate the US army's 250th anniversary on 14 June – which will also coincide with the president's 79th birthday. It will feature 150 military vehicles including 60-ton tanks and armored fighting vehicles, and more than 50 helicopters and aircraft such as a Mustang fighter aircraft and a B-25 Mitchell bomber, which were both used widely during the second world war. These vehicles burn dozens or even hundreds of gallons of fuel per hour.
Institute for Policy studies quantified the emissions that will result from the use of those vehicles, using data from the International Energy Agency and publicly available information. The researchers calculated emissions from not only the parade route itself, but also the transport of the vehicles to the event and the upstream impact of producing fuel for the parade.
The large quantity of emissions this activity is estimated to produce is equivalent to those from flying 4,700 people from North Carolina – where the parade helicopters are based – to the nation's capital in first class.
The calculation is likely an understatement as it does not include pollution from transporting thousands of people, horses and equipment to the parade, or other energy used for the event.
Hanna Homestead, research analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies, noted the same kinds of vehicles deployed for the parade have also been used to transport napalm and other supplies to Vietnam, and are now being used by Israel in its siege on Gaza.
'So we're spending money to glorify a gas-guzzling equipment used for war, genocide and planetary destruction,' she said, 'at the same time as critical services for populations at home and around the world are being slashed.'
Reached for comment, a White House spokesperson, Anna Kelley, said the parade 'will honor all of the military men and women who have bravely served our country, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom'.
The president reportedly sought to throw a similar tribute during his first term, inspired by Bastille Day celebrations in France, but was thwarted by then secretary of defense James Mattis. Trump's parade this year has inspired 'No Kings' protests across the country.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Lindsay Koshgarian, program director at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that the parade's emissions are 'egregious' and the event itself is a 'wake-up call' about Trump's priorities.
'This parade comes alongside proposals for a $1tn Pentagon budget, along with massive cuts to healthcare, food programs, and an ideological attack on climate programs both in the Pentagon and across government,' she said. 'The more we spend on sending these fuel-guzzling tanks and helicopters around the world, the less we have to protect our people, communities and the planet.'
The Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project, which focuses on budget analysis and which Koshgarian directs, found that the $45m it will cost to hold the military parade would be enough to fund programs Trump has put on the chopping block, such as the two offices enforcing endangered species protection or the development of an HIV vaccine in South Africa.
Military forces' contribution to global carbon emissions has come under greater scrutiny in recent years. The world's militaries produce at least 5.5% of greenhouse gas emissions – more than the total footprint of Japan – one 2022 estimate found. And the US Department of Defense is the single largest institutional greenhouse gas emitter in the world, using more petroleum than any other institution, research shows.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Starmer must stand up to Trump at crucial G7 summit
There may not be enough maple syrup in Canada to sugar coat any diplomatic misstep by Keir Starmer as he joins arguably the most important international summit of his premiership so far. The last time the word 'Canada' passed the prime minister's lips on a trip to North America, it caused a diplomatic storm with one ally even as he was carefully trying to get another one on side. This weekend, the prime minister joins fellow leaders from the world's biggest economies - including Donald Trump - for the G7 summit in Alberta. While the leaders, hosted by recently reelected Canadian PM Mark Carney, will discuss a number of issues, top of the real agenda will be the hot topics of US tariffs, the war in Ukraine and now the combustible situation in the Middle East with Israel's America-backed attacks on Iran. Starmer - with his soft approach to dealing with Trump - will be hoping that he can stay on course to get the trade deal the two announced to great fanfare over the line. The UK prime minister will also be trying to edge Trump towards a tougher approach to Ukraine and avoid him ditching the Aukus submarine agreement with the US, UK and Australia. All this requires a careful balance of egos - particularly that of the man from the White House. Trump is at his first summit since being ousted from office in 2020. But the added picante to this summit is the overhang of a diplomatic incident Sir Keir inadvertently caused the last time he was asked about the status of Canada in the presence of President Trump. Back in March, at the White House press conference, the prime minister was pressed by The Independent's White House correspondent, Andrew Feinberg, on Trump's (ongoing) plans to turn Canada into the 51st state. Just hours after Sir Keir had handed Trump an invitation from the King for a state visit to the UK in the Oval Office, it seemed only fair to ask about the status of another part of Charles III's sovereign realms on the US border. The prime minister, desperate to be Trump's best pal, at the time, tried to laugh it off. He said: 'Look, we had a really good discussion, a productive discussion... you mentioned Canada, I think you are trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist, we are the closest of nations. We didn't discuss Canada.' To say the failure to stand up for Canadian sovereignty did not go down well in the Commonwealth country is an understatement. Among a series of angry and disobliging quotes was one from retired Canadian ambassador Artur Wilczynski. He noted: 'Starmer's refusal to come to Canada's defence in front of Trump is more than disappointing. Canadians died for the UK by the tens of thousands. He could have opened his bloody mouth to speak up for us.' But the incident - likely to come up as an issue again with Trump next week - highlighted the near-impossible situation he has in dealing with the US President. Waving off the problems of the UK's Canadian cousins was perhaps a price worth paying if it meant goint from Obama's 'back of the queue' for a trade deal to the front of the line for Trump. Unfortunately, even though it was announced to great fanfare, the trade deal with the US still has not come into effect. Just on Thursday, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds was telling journalists in Parliament's Press Gallery lunch about his frantic calls to keep the negotiations moving. Worse still, the zero tariffs that Sir Keir thought he had won on steel could soon turn into 50 per cent tariffs if issues are not resolved soon after Trump increased his levies. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is showing outright hostility to the UK for arguably doing the right thing in sanctioning extremists in the Israeli government. Surrounded by other allies including the EU, Germany and France, Sir Keir will need to carefully balance his approach, especially if Trump gets tetchy again. For those of us who have been around a bit, we all remember the last time Trump arrived for a G7 summit in Canada in 2018 and the utter chaos it unleashed. Sir Keir could do well to call former prime minister, Baroness Theresa May, for advice on how to handle it, because this G7 is a case of deja vu. Trump infamously arrived late but was persuaded to sign a communique of the event hosted by the then-Canadian PM Justin Trudeau after he was surrounded by fellow leaders led by the then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In the process, the US president managed to insult the then-Japanese prime minister, the late Shinzo Abe, suggesting he would send 25 million Mexicans to Japan to teach him about migration issues. Things only got worse when he left early to fly to Singapore to meet North Korean despot Kim Jong Un. A fed-up Mr Trudeau said of Trump: "Canadians are polite and reasonable but we will also not be pushed around." Trump's ego was hurt and his swift rebuke was to accuse Trudeau of acting "meek and mild" during meetings, only to attack the US at a news conference, and order his team to unsign the communique he had agreed to support in response. When she was asked by The Independent 's Kate Devlin (then of the Sunday Express) in the subsequent press conference about whether Brits would be pushed around, Baroness May characteristically suggested Brits were 'strong and stable' - a phrase which provided the epitaph for her tumultuous premiership. She was, though, at a time somewhat traumatised by her Brexit negotiations with the EU and the political upheaval it caused in the UK. The lessons of the present and the past should act as a warning for Sir Keir to prepare for complete disarray and to expect anything. But, given recent criticism of his leadership style, he may want to be less robotic in his responses than Baroness May and might want to avoid selling out Canada again.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Mark Carney's conversion from eco warrior to oil and gas champion
Once considered the Bank of England's greenest-ever governor, Mark Carney has seemingly undergone a Damascene conversion. During his time at Threadneedle Street, he called on the world to leave 80pc of oil and gas in the ground. But now, as Canada's new prime minister, he wants to pump as much as he can to protect the country's economy from Donald Trump's trade war. Canada is going to become an energy powerhouse, Carney told reporters last week. And he didn't mean just in renewables. 'When I talk about being an energy superpower, I mean in both clean and conventional energies,' he said. 'And yes, that does mean oil and gas. 'It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. 'It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so yes, it also means more oil and gas exports – without question.' These comments are remarkable given they come from a man who repeatedly called for an end to drilling during his tenure as Bank governor between 2013 and 2020. One such call came in a 2015 speech at Lloyds of London, when he described 80pc of the world's known fossil fuel reserves as 'unburnable'. He said: 'The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no incentive to fix.' Given Carney's influence, his dramatic warnings inevitably shaped UK government decision-making at the time, as he championed the cause of net zero to a total of five different energy secretaries. Claire Perry, who served as Tory energy minister between 2017 and 2018, recalls: 'Mark had a huge impact on global climate issues. 'He created all the momentum around carbon markets and energy transition investment.' Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader who served as energy secretary in the 2012-15 coalition government, echoes this. 'Mark Carney had a real understanding of where the wind was blowing globally on energy, and recognised the risks to the economy of over-reliance on fossil fuels,' he says. After leaving the Bank, Carney also wrote a book called Value(s): An Economist's Guide to Everything That Matters, where he advocated powerfully for the introduction of carbon taxes. 'One of the most important initiatives is carbon pricing,' he wrote. 'The best approach is a revenue-neutral, progressive carbon tax.' The UK has since faithfully implemented that plan with a raft of carbon levies on consumers and industry, which many argue has left Britain burdened by some of the highest energy prices in the world. 'Energy superpower' Jump ahead to 2025, however, and Carney – now a Canadian politician instead of a British bureaucrat – has adopted a wildly different approach. Immediately after succeeding Justin Trudeau as prime minister and winning Canada's election in April, he wasted no time in signing a directive cancelling Canada's existing carbon tax and confirming rebates for many of those who had paid it. He's now gone even further by pledging to build oil and gas pipelines, LNG export terminals, and to relax the emissions restrictions that have angered many of Canada's biggest fossil fuels producers. And his plans don't stop there. 'All this is not enough just to make Canada an energy superpower,' he said. 'It's not enough to build our full potential. 'It's not enough to truly get incomes growing across the country. We can do much more. We are going to be very, very ambitious. Build, big, build, bold.' Carney, who also previously ran the Bank of Canada, reconciles such ambitions with simultaneous pledges on green technologies that could theoretically reduce emissions, such as carbon capture and storage. But these will take years or decades to implement. According to experts, Carney's conversation has been driven by the economy, as oil and gas accounted for up to 7.5pc of the country's GDP in recent years. In 2023, crude oil exports alone were valued at $124bn, representing 16pc of Canada's total exports. That figure rises to 20pc if gas exports are included. What's more, Canada has about 171bn barrels of oil in recoverable reserves – far greater than America's 44bn. It means Canada can rely on oil for decades, whereas US production is expected to peak in the next few years. However, most of that oil and gas comes from one province, Alberta. That region alone holds billions of dollars, although its voters blame Carney's and Trudeau's Liberal party for climate restrictions that curbed economic growth. A recent opinion piece for Canada's Globe and Mail by Preston Manning, a retired politician who helped found Canada's conservative movement, warned that his 5m fellow Albertans had had enough of rule from Ottawa and were considering secession. Some go further. Alberta, they point out, shares a border with the US and perhaps has more in common with the likes of Texas than Toronto. These growing tensions have created a political opportunity for Alberta's conservative leaders. Independence referendum Less than 24 hours after Carney's election, Danielle Smith, Alberta's premier, introduced a bill to the province's legislature, making it much easier for a citizens' movement to trigger an independence referendum. The new rules slash the number of citizens' signatures required to trigger a referendum, from 600,000 to 177,000 and give petitioners 120 days to collect them rather than the previous 90. She has done so to pile pressure on Carney, handing him a list of nine energy-related federal laws she wants overhauled to unleash more drilling in Alberta. 'We cannot keep the over $9 trillion worth of oil wealth we have in the ground,' she said. 'Mark Carney has acknowledged that the federal government must address key policy barriers. 'That must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap, repealing the tanker ban, and scrapping Canada's net-zero power regulations. 'I believe in a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, but we cannot persist with the status quo. I won't allow that status quo to continue.' Smith is also exploiting the tensions generated by Donald Trump, the US president, whose talk of making Canada the 51st state resonates with some Albertans. She sees her demands as a test of the scale of Carney's commitment to oil and gas: 'Given his past actions, I've asked myself what version of Mark Carney are we going to get. 'Will we get the pragmatic Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney? Or will we get the environmental extremist keep-it-in-the-ground Mark Carney? 'I don't know the answer yet. He's saying some of the right things, but we need to see meaningful action.' Such tensions have been around for a long time. What Canada's politicians say and do are often very different things, says Brendan Long, a leading energy analyst and Canadian, whose new book Energy Shocks, compares the politics of energy in the UK, US and Canada. He points out that Canada has a long history of electing prime ministers with stridently green manifestos who then preside over huge increases in oil and gas production. 'While previous premier Justin Trudeau had explicitly anti-fossil fuel agendas, domestic Canadian oil and gas production grew dramatically under his leadership,' he said. 'Today, Canada is ranked fourth in terms of global oil production at 5.8m barrels of oil per day and growing.' By contrast, Long points out that the UK is the only large global oil producer to have deliberately cut its production in recent years, signalling the long-standing net-zero legacy left by Carney. 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was the governor of the Bank of England,' he says.
NBC News
34 minutes ago
- NBC News
Poll: Americans disapprove of spending public funds to put on military parade in Washington
Nearly 2 in 3 U.S. adults — 64% — oppose the use of government funds for this weekend's military parade in Washington, D.C., celebrating the Army's 250th birthday, according to new data from the NBC News Decision Desk Poll, powered by SurveyMonkey. Majorities of Democrats (88%) and independents (72%) oppose the use of government funds to put on the parade, while 65% of Republicans support it. Spending public funds on the parade is more popular among supporters of the MAGA movement (75% support), compared to Republicans who identify more as supporters of the party itself (56% support). The poll was conducted May 30-June 10 and surveyed 19,410 adults nationally, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. The Saturday parade to celebrate the Army, which also falls on both Flag Day and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, will include about 6,600 soldiers, 50 aircraft and 150 vehicles, according to defense officials. There will be different sections for different portions of the Army's history, and the event is expected to feature an air show with flyovers and a demonstration by the Army's Golden Knights parachute team. But it's not clear how possible storms forecast for Saturday in the Washington area could affect those plans. The event could cost as much as $45 million, a price tag that includes up to $16 million for costs associated with potential damage to city streets caused by tanks driving on them. Respondents in the Decision Desk Poll were asked: "As you may know, President Trump has ordered a military parade in Washington D.C. on June 14th to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th Birthday. Defense officials estimate the cost for this parade could be as much as 45 million dollars. Do you support or oppose the use of government funds for the parade?" Overall, 14% of adults said they strongly supported the use of government funds for the parade, and another 22% said they somewhat supported it. Meanwhile, 44% were strongly opposed and another 20% were somewhat opposed. In early May, Trump defended the cost of the parade by arguing on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that the total was 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.' 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest Army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it,' he said. Democratic politicians have criticized Trump over the parade spending, saying the money could go to other causes. "You're not doing it to celebrate the Army's birthday, you're doing it to stroke Donald Trump's ego," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., said last week during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to Army leaders discussing its budget. "There are lots of ways to celebrate the Army's birthday without blowing it all on a parade," she added. Others, including groups aligned with Democrats, are planning protests around the event in Washington and across the country, along with ongoing protests about Trump's immigration policy happening around the U.S.
